3
   

Is Fraternity Hazing Torture covered by Geneva Conventions?

 
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Sep, 2006 09:15 am
I was simply pointing out a comparison wherein innocent people have not only been seriously injured but have died because of a something called hazing, a supposedly innocent practice on college campuses. Compare this to military personel using practices to interrogate terrorist suspects to protect us. One is totally unnecessary, which is hazing. The other is a necessary pursuit, and the only question comes into what is acceptable and what is not. We have people complaining because detainees were made to stand, or made to listen to loud music, or made to be slightly cold or too hot. I'm sorry but the vast majority of the complaints are nonsense.

I will agree that there may be rare instances of abuse, but even these pale in comparison to how prisoners have been treated in most any other war in history. I will even agree that a few innocent people are probably caught in the web of suspicion, which is unavoidable even in criminal cases throughout the world. This is an unfortunate byproduct of this war, but it is unavoidable unless one subscribes to the belief that all detainees should be released, in which case some would come back to kill our soldiers and innocent citizens around the world.

We shouldn't need to be reminded of the simple fact that we did not create the problem of terrorism, the terrorists did. So if anyone should be blamed for the byproduct of all that has happened with this problem then lay the blame where it belongs. The whole concept of terrorism is utterly barbaric, cruel, and unacceptable to any civil society, and I fail to understand how anyone can have any sympathies for those engaged in it, but lo and behold, some on this forum apparently do. It was amply demonstrated again by this thread.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Sep, 2006 09:16 am
okie wrote:
I was simply pointing out a comparison wherein innocent people have not only been seriously injured but have died because of a something called hazing, a supposedly innocent practice on college campuses. Compare this to military personel using practices to interrogate terrorist suspects to protect us. One is totally unnecessary, which is hazing. The other is a necessary pursuit, and the only question comes into what is acceptable and what is not. We have people complaining because detainees were made to stand, or made to listen to loud music, or made to be slightly cold or too hot. I'm sorry but the vast majority of the complaints are nonsense.

I will agree that there may be rare instances of abuse, but even these pale in comparison to how prisoners have been treated in most any other war in history. I will even agree that a few innocent people are probably caught in the web of suspicion, which is unavoidable even in criminal cases throughout the world. This is an unfortunate byproduct of this war, but it is unavoidable unless one subscribes to the belief that all detainees should be released, in which case some would come back to kill our soldiers and innocent citizens around the world.

We shouldn't need to be reminded of the simple fact that we did not create the problem of terrorism, the terrorists did. So if anyone should be blamed for the byproduct of all that has happened with this problem then lay the blame where it belongs. The whole concept of terrorism is utterly barbaric, cruel, and unacceptable to any civil society, and I fail to understand how anyone can have any sympathies for those engaged in it, but lo and behold, some on this forum apparently do. It was amply demonstrated again by this thread.


No, it wasn't.


Do you have no understanding of the most basic rules of logic and reason?
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Sep, 2006 09:17 am
okie wrote:
The whole concept of terrorism is utterly barbaric, cruel, and unacceptable to any civil society...

So is the concept of torture.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Sep, 2006 09:18 am
okie wrote:
something called hazing, a supposedly innocent practice

If it is innocent, then why is it illegal? Have you considered rubbing a couple of brain cells together prior to posting?
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Sep, 2006 09:23 am
okie wrote:
The whole concept of terrorism is utterly barbaric, cruel, and unacceptable to any civil society, and I fail to understand how anyone can have any sympathies for those engaged in it,

How about those who weren't engaged in it, ended up in Gitmo anyway, were 'alternatively interrogated' there, and never had the case against them presented in a fair trial?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Sep, 2006 09:29 am
Okay Thomas and all the rest of you guys in your infinite wisdom, do you think detainees, such as those captured in foreign sites, such as battle areas, should be turned over to the U.S. criminal justice system so that they can have a defense lawyer, jury trial, or whatever?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Sep, 2006 09:32 am
DrewDad wrote:
okie wrote:
something called hazing, a supposedly innocent practice

If it is innocent, then why is it illegal? Have you considered rubbing a couple of brain cells together prior to posting?


Illegal or not, it may depend on what state you live, it doesn't matter, I was simply comparing what has happened with hazing and the reaction of people to it, compared to all the press of the supposedly horrible things at Gitmo, which is mostly politically driven, and I think this amply demonstrates the comparison.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Sep, 2006 09:34 am
This recalls to mind the manuscript journal i once read, written by an Englishman visiting London in 1830. He went with some friends to a public hanging, such executions then being treated as a form of public entertainment. He commented on how sincere and truthful the victim sounded as he stood on the scaffold and proclaimed his innocence before he was hanged . . . and how accomplished a liar he must have been, because he was obviously guilty--otherwise, they wouldn't have been hanging him.

I believe it is fair to state that the same species of "logic" is being applied here.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Sep, 2006 09:34 am
joefromchicago wrote:
okie wrote:
The whole concept of terrorism is utterly barbaric, cruel, and unacceptable to any civil society...

So is the concept of torture.


But torture should be truly torture. Standing for long periods of time is not torture. If it was, I have suffered great torture recently, and I need to sue somebody.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Sep, 2006 09:38 am
Setanta wrote:
This recalls to mind the manuscript journal i once read, written by an Englishman visiting London in 1830. He went with some friends to a public hanging, such executions then being treated as a form of public entertainment. He commented on how sincere and truthful the victim sounded as he stood on the scaffold and proclaimed his innocence before he was hanged . . . and how accomplished a liar he must have been, because he was obviously guilty--otherwise, they wouldn't have been hanging him.

I believe it is fair to state that the same species of "logic" is being applied here.


Setanta, nobody is stupid enough to believe all prisoners are totally guilty. The vast majority, perhaps almost all are either totally involved or slightly involved in terrorist activity. If you have an alternative to how it is being handled, let me know. Turn them all loose or turn them over to the criminal justice system, which is it?
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Sep, 2006 09:44 am
okie wrote:
Okay Thomas and all the rest of you guys in your infinite wisdom, do you think detainees, such as those captured in foreign sites, such as battle areas, should be turned over to the U.S. criminal justice system so that they can have a defense lawyer, jury trial, or whatever?

I'd settle for a regular court-martial. No hidden evidence, no coerced testimony, no breach of lawyer-client confidentiality or any of the BS in the Bush proposal. Just a plain vanilla court-martial. That would be fine with me.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Sep, 2006 09:45 am
okie wrote:

But torture should be truly torture. Standing for long periods of time is not torture. If it was, I have suffered great torture recently, and I need to sue somebody.


I really would sue the deputy or however didn't offer you a chair.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Sep, 2006 09:55 am
A term like "totally guilty" suggests as much sense as "totally pregnant." Either someone is guilty or is not.

What i suggest is that we simply adhere to the terms of the Geneva Convention, which you first mentioned in this thread. The United States is, in the terms of the Convention, one of the High Contracting Parties, and it would be most appropriate for the United States to adhere to the terms of an international diplomatic engagement for which the United States was as responsible or more so than any other signatory.

The Fourth Geneva Convention describes itself as the "Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War." The second paragraph of Article 5, Part I-General Provisions, reads, in its entirety:

Quote:
Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal. (emphasis added)


It is a little absurd to ask that i suggest to you remedies when the very first step--determining the status of those euphemistically referred to as "detainees"--has not yet been taken. At such time as a competent tribunal has determined the status of these unfortunates, then it will be appropriate to canvas remedies. However, with regard to your snivelling hobby horse here, torture, this is my statement:

At not time, under any circumstances, for any category of prisoner, is torture justified, nor should it be tolerated by a nation which claims to be civilized, and the more so by a nation such as the United States, whose more perfervid, patriotic citizens think to hold us up as a beacon of peace, freedom and justice to the world.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Sep, 2006 10:00 am
Setanta wrote:

The Fourth Geneva Convention describes itself as the "Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War." The second paragraph of Article 5, Part I-General Provisions, reads, in its entirety:

Quote:
Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal. (emphasis added)



Setanta, the problem arises in that terrorists are not covered by the Geneva Conventions, but we nevertheless have the policy of treating the prisoners humane anyway. And we are still in process of determining their status because the problem is they cannot be identified by any uniform they wore or any allegiance to any country.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Sep, 2006 10:03 am
okie wrote:
Setanta wrote:

The Fourth Geneva Convention describes itself as the "Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War." The second paragraph of Article 5, Part I-General Provisions, reads, in its entirety:

Quote:
Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal. (emphasis added)



Setanta, the problem arises in that terrorists are not covered by the Geneva Conventions, but we nevertheless have the policy of treating the prisoners humane anyway. And we are still in process of determining their status because the problem is they cannot be identified by any uniform they wore or any allegiance to any country.

The problem arises in that terrorists are human, no matter how much you hate them.

The same with murderers, rapists, pedophiles, and telemarketers who scam grandmas.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Sep, 2006 10:05 am
Thomas wrote:
okie wrote:
Okay Thomas and all the rest of you guys in your infinite wisdom, do you think detainees, such as those captured in foreign sites, such as battle areas, should be turned over to the U.S. criminal justice system so that they can have a defense lawyer, jury trial, or whatever?

I'd settle for a regular court-martial. No hidden evidence, no coerced testimony, no breach of lawyer-client confidentiality or any of the BS in the Bush proposal. Just a plain vanilla court-martial. That would be fine with me.


I think a court martial is for crimes committed by our own military personel, and this has happened for soldiers recently in regard to their actions in Iraq, etc. I think you might be referring to military tribunals, but the problem arises in that we are still in process of identifying the status of many of the combatants and extracting information from them. In addition, the war we are engaged in is far from over, so the problem given us by terrorists is a new one that we are having trouble figuring out how to deal with in the best way. We have released many, and some have been found again on the battlefield trying to kill our soldiers, so you can see the problems posed here.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Sep, 2006 10:10 am
okie wrote:
Setanta, the problem arises in that terrorists are not covered by the Geneva Conventions, but we nevertheless have the policy of treating the prisoners humane anyway. And we are still in process of determining their status because the problem is they cannot be identified by any uniform they wore or any allegiance to any country.


The principle problem that i see here is your bigotted assumptions and apparent inability to comprehend what you read. If their individual cases have not been reviewed by a competent tribunal, then we don't know of these jokers are terrotists or not. And, in fact, if they were taken in arms on the battlefield, and were fighting for the Taliban, they are prisoners of war in the most exact sense, because the Taliban was the government of Afghanistan at the time of the 2001 invasion, whether or not you approve of the Talian.

If all prisoners were treated in a humane manner, there wouldn't be any argument about torture. If "we" are still in the process of determining their status, nearly five years after the invasion of Afghanistan, where is the competent tribunal called for in the Fourth Geneva Convention? Why has it taken five years, why are we "still in the process," and most telling, if we have not yet determined the status of these jokers (after almost five years), why do you call them terrorists?

Charged, tried and convicted in your mind, aren't they, Okie--and you don't even need to see any evidence.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Sep, 2006 10:11 am
DrewDad wrote:
The problem arises in that terrorists are human, no matter how much you hate them.

The same with murderers, rapists, pedophiles, and telemarketers who scam grandmas.


Huh? The issue here is to stop bad behavior, not hate. Unless you want more terrorists, murderers, rapists, pedophiles, and telemarketers who scam grandmas, I would suggest we not turn the people loose.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Sep, 2006 10:13 am
okie wrote:
We have released many, and some have been found again on the battlefield trying to kill our soldiers, so you can see the problems posed here.


That reads like purest Sooner horseshit to me. Got some proof for this allegation, Okie?
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Sep, 2006 10:16 am
okie wrote:
Setanta, the problem arises in that terrorists are not covered by the Geneva Conventions

Nothing but the laws of war give the US government the right to detain those people in the first place. If you say the Geneva conventions don't apply, you imply that the detainees are not prisoners of war. But then what basis in international law have you left for locking them up at all?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 08/02/2021 at 11:05:17